UPSC Essentials — Weekly news express with MCQs: No confidence motion, Madhav Gadgil report, and more

Thank you for joining us forLIVE sessions. Every day we receive your emails and messages, in large numbers, with queries revolving around news and UPSC preparation in general. Each letter and text makes us feel that we must do more to simplify your examination preparation journey. You will be happy to know that we will be LIVE every week on Wednesdays, take up your queries, provide you with cues from the news, and discuss a relevant themerevolving around news and UPSC preparation in general.

You can send your queries at manas.srivastava@indianexpress.com or join Telegram: The Indian Express UPSC Hub or ask me Live!  on August 2.

No confidence motion

WHY IN NEWS?

— Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla accepted the Opposition’s no confidence motion against the Government  on July 26, saying that he will speak to leaders of all parties and announce when the discussion on the motion will be taken up.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

What is a no confidence motion?

— In a parliamentary democracy, a government can be in power only if it commands a majority in the directly elected House. Article 75(3) of our Constitution embodies this rule by specifying that the Council of Ministers are collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha.

— For testing this collective responsibility, the rules of Lok Sabha provide a particular mechanism – a motion of no-confidence. Any Lok Sabha MP, who can garner the support of 50 colleagues, can, at any point of time, introduce a motion of no-confidence against the Council of Ministers.

— Thereafter, a discussion on the motion takes place. MPs who support the motion highlight the government’s shortcomings, and the Treasury Benches respond to the issues they raise. Finally, a vote takes place – in case the motion carries, the government is bound to vacate the office.

— A no confidence motion can only be moved in the Lok Sabha.

What is the purpose of a no-confidence motion against the government?

— In India’s cabinet form of government, the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha. The rules of Lok Sabha provide the mechanism of a no-confidence motion to test whether the Council of Ministers continues to enjoy the confidence of the House.

— Twenty-seven no-confidence motions have been moved so far. None of these motions, including the one against the first Modi government in 2018, has been successful. The present government has a large majority in Lok Sabha, and the current motion of no-confidence is likely to be negatived as well.

— In 1979, Prime Minister Morarji Desai realised that he did not have the support of the majority of MPs, and therefore resigned before the House voted on the motion.

How many no confidence motions have been moved in the past?

— It was during the third Lok Sabha in 1963 that the first motion of no confidence was moved by Acharya J B Kripalani against the government headed by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. The debate on the motion lasted for 21 hours over four days, with 40 MPs participating.

— In his reply, Nehru remarked, “A no-confidence motion aims at or should aim at removing the party in government and taking its place. It is clear in the present instance that there was no such expectation or hope. And so the debate, although it was interesting in many ways and, I think profitable too, was a little unreal. Personally, I have welcomed this motion and this debate. I have felt that it would be a good thing if we were to have periodical tests of this kind.”

— Since then, there have been 26 more no-confidence motions moved in the parliament (not counting the latest one), with the last one being in 2018, moved by the TRS against the previous Narendra Modi government.

(Source: What is a no confidence motion?)

Point to ponder: If we give responsibility to government, accountability also lies with them. Discuss.

1. MCQ:

 Which of the following is/are the exclusive power(s) of Lok Sabha? (UPSC CSE 2022)

1. To ratify the declaration of Emergency

2. To pass a motion of no-confidence against the Council of Ministers

3. To impeach the President of India

Select the correct answer using the code given below:

(a) 1 and 2

(b) 2 only

(c) 1 and 3

(d) 3 only

Madhav Gadgil report on Western Ghats

WHY IN NEWS?

— A landslide in Maharashtra’s Raigad district last week claimed 27 lives, flattened an entire village, and brought back into focus the 2011 Dr Madhav Gadgil report on conservation of the Western Ghats.

— During a discussion in the Maharashtra Assembly, state congress chief Nana Patole asked what had happened to the Madhav Gadgil Committee report, on ecologically sensitive zones in the Western Ghats. Deputy chief minister Devendra Fadnavis said as per the recommendation of the report, the mapping of all the landslide-prone villages in the state, including those on the Western Ghats, was carried out during his tenure as the Chief Minister of the state between 2014 and 2019 and was submitted to the Union government.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Srishti Kapoor Explains:

What does the report state?

— In 2010, then Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh appointed the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP), to be chaired by ecologist Dr Madhav Gadgil. The commission submitted its 552-page report to the Centre in August 2011.

— The report recommended classifying 64 percent of the Western Ghats, spread over six states, into Ecologically Sensitive Zones called ESZ 1, ESZ 2 and ESZ 3. It also recommended designating the entire region as an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA).

— Almost all developmental activities like mining, construction of thermal power plants, dams were to stop along with the decommissioning of similar projects that have completed their shelf life in ESZ 1. It said that both the Athirappilly and Gundia hydel project sites should not be accorded environmental clearance as they fall in this zone.

— For Goa, WGEEP recommended an indefinite moratorium on new environmental clearances for mining in ESZs 1 and 2, a phasing out of mining in Ecologically Sensitive Zone 1 by 2016, and continuation of existing mining in Ecologically Sensitive Zone 2 under strict regulation with an effective system of social audit.

— In the Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts of Maharashtra, the panel advised that in ESZs 1 and 2, no new polluting (red and orange category) industries, which would include coal-based power plants, should be permitted to be established, and the existing red and orange category industries should be asked to switch to zero pollution by 2016. Further, it found that plains and coastal tracts in these districts were under “severe environmental and social stress”.

— In all the zones, genetically modified crops should not be allowed, use of plastic bags be prohibited, Special Economic Zones should not be permitted, new hill stations should not be allowed, changing the land use from farmland to non-farm land and the stoppage of diversions of rivers to protect the ecology of the region, and public lands should not be converted into private lands.

— The report also suggested a bottom-to-top approach instead of a top-to-bottom approach in governance of the environment, indicating decentralization and more powers to local authorities. It recommended the establishment of a Western Ghats Ecology Authority under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, as a professional body to manage the ecology of the region and to ensure its sustainable development.

— Another major recommendation was a ban on growing single commercial crops like tea, coffee, cardamom, rubber, banana and pineapple, which have led to “fragmentation of forest, soil erosion, degradation of river ecosystems and toxic contamination of the environment”. “A policy shift is urgently warranted curtailing the environmentally disastrous practices and switching over to a more sustainable farming approach in the Western Ghats,” the report stated.

— The panel had urged the Ministry of Environment and Forests to take critical steps to involve citizens, including proactive and sympathetic implementation of the provisions of the Community Forest Resources of the Forest Rights Act.

— It stated that new settlement patterns and development are resulting in hill-cutting and physical changes in slope profile due to roads, terracing and construction.

What was the need for this report?

— The Gadgil commission was formed by the Ministry of Environment in 2010 to study the impact of population pressure, climate change and development activities on the Western Ghats.

— Accorded the World Heritage status by UNESCO, the Western Ghats are a 1,600-km-long mountain chain running the western coast of the country covering six states — Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala. These Ghats are home to high mountain forests, which moderate the tropical climate of the region and present one of the best examples of the monsoon system on the planet. They are home to 325 globally threatened flora, fauna, bird, amphibian, reptile and fish species. About 60 percent of the mountain range is in Karnataka.

What was said about its implementation?

— Stakeholder states resisted the implementation of the recommendations of the Gadgil panel amid fears of hindrance to development and loss of livelihood.

— In August 2012, then Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan constituted a High-Level Working Group on Western Ghats under former Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) chief Dr K Kasturirangan, which found that of the nearly 1,750 responses it had examined, 81% were not in favour of the Gadgil recommendations.

— In particular, Kerala had objected to the proposed ban on sand mining and quarrying, restrictions on transport infrastructure and wind energy projects, embargos on hydroelectric projects and inter-basin transfer of river waters, and also the complete ban on new polluting industries.

— When floods and landslides hit Kerala in 2018, and in the three consecutive years after that, Gadgil said following his report’s suggestions would have reduced the magnitude of events in the state. He had told The Indian Express that the report prepared by the WGEEP was a pro-nature, pro-people report based on sound scientific information and feedback from central and state governments, zilla parishads, gram panchayats and people.

Kasturirangan-led panel formulates report to replace WGEEP

— While the Gadgil panel recommended 64 percent area in the Western Ghats, a report by a panel led by Dr K Kasturirangan notified only 37 percent of the area as ecologically sensitive.

— It also split the Western Ghats into cultural (human settlements) and natural (non-human settlements) regions. It was suggested that cultural lands be designated as an ecologically sensitive area (ESA). At the time, Gadgil lamented that the Kasturirangan panel had “destroyed the essence of his panel’s report.”

— It also consisted of red, orange and green categories. The red list entailed a ban on mining, stone quarrying, thermal plans and certain construction and township projects. The orange category had activities that would be regulated and taken up with appropriate permissions, while the green category allows all agricultural and horticultural activities and commercial activities.

— In an affidavit filed before the National Green Tribunal in 2014, the Ministry of Environment and Forests submitted that it is examining the recommendations of the K Kasturirangan-led panel and will not process the Gadgil report for further action.

— Gadgil criticised the report calling it ‘faulty’ and ‘unscientific’. “The Kasturirangan report does not dilute our original report but perverts it. If you take milk and add water to it, it is called dilution; if you take milk and add formaldehyde to it it is not dilution, but something quite different. The pro-nature WGEEP report was unpalatable to the powers. The government then set up the Kasturirangan committee which produced a very faulty, unscientific report which further stated that local communities have no role in economic decisions, clearly in violation of our constitutional provisions,” Gadgil told The Indian Express.

— In 2017, the Environment Ministry issued a draft notification, demarcating an area of 56,285 sq km in the Western Ghats as ESA as opposed to the 59,940 sq km recommended by the Kasturirangan committee. In Kerala, this was brought down to 9,993.7 sq km from the Kasturirangan committee recommendation of 13,108 square km as part of ESA.

— By 2022, the Centre announced a high-powered committee constituted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to conduct physical landscaping and submit a detailed report in a year’s time.

(Source: Raigad landslide brings back focus on Madhav Gadgil report on Western Ghats: What it recommended by Srishti Kapoor )

Point to ponder: Why implementation of the recommendations of Kasturirangan Committee in Western Ghats is important?

2. MCQ:

From the ecological point of view, which one of the following assumes importance in being a good link between the Eastern Ghats and the Western Ghats? (UPSC CSE 2017)

(a) Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve

(b) Nallamala Forest

(c) Nagarhole National Park

(d) Seshachalam Biosphere Reserve

Kargil Vijay Diwas

WHY IN NEWS?

— Leaders across India’s political spectrum paid their tributes to India’s armed forces and the fallen martyrs on the occasion of the 24th anniversary of the Kargil Vijay Diwas.

— Speaking at the Kargil War Memorial in Ladakh, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh remembered the sacrifices of India’s soldiers and blamed Pakistan for the Kargil War.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

The Kargil War

— The Kargil War officially ended on July 26, 1999, with the eviction of the last remaining Pakistani troops and infiltrators from positions on the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC).

— The conflict was triggered when infiltrators from Pakistan crossed the LoC and occupied high positions in Ladakh’s Kargil district. First reported to the Indian Army on May 3, the infiltrators were initially thought to be jihadis. But over the first few weeks, as the sheer scale of the invasion came to light, the role of the Pakistani state became undeniable.

— Between mid-May and July, the Indian forces slowly recaptured critical positions from the Pakistanis, in the face of heavy casualties and numerous strategic and logistic difficulties, culminating with the Army announcing the complete withdrawal of all Pakistani regular and irregular troops from Kargil on July 26.

— As per official figures, Indian casualties at the end of the War stood at 527 dead, 1,363 wounded and 1 PoW (Fl Lt K Nachiketa, whose MiG-27 was shot down during a strike operation).

Challenging conditions

— The Kargil War posed multiple challenges to the Indian armed forces. On one hand, were the enemy infiltrators, well armed and supported by non-stop shelling by Pakistani artillery from across the border. On the other, were the conditions of Kargil itself.

— As MP Acosta, a US Army officer, wrote in his dissertation “High Altitude Warfare: The Kargil Conflict and the Future” (2003), “The high altitude environment determined the nature of the conflict and shaped the conduct of the campaign.”

— Kargil is located at the northern edge of the LoC, some 200 km northeast of Srinagar and 230 km west of Leh. While the town of Kargil is itself at an altitude of 2,676 m (8,780 ft), Dras lies at a height of 3,300 m (10,800 ft) and the surrounding peaks rise to altitudes of 4,800 m (16,000 ft) to 5,500 m (18,000 ft).

— These are extremely high altitudes, which cause severe physiological effects on the human body while also posing logistical and strategic challenges.

Problems faced during high altitude warfare

— “The combination of thin air, cold weather and rugged mountains has dramatic effects on men and their equipment.,” Acosta wrote.

— First is the crippling cold. The Kargil battlefield lies in a cold desert with winter temperatures going as low as – 30 degrees Celsius. While the summers are more pleasant, chilly winds and the barren landscape still make the battlefield highly inhospitable. The cold impacts both the men and the machines – guns jam while their operators expend great amounts of energy to keep the body warm.

— The high altitudes also pose the challenge of reduced Oxygen levels in the air, which causes a wide range of physiological effects and illnesses – some of which can even be fatal. The most common altitude related illness is acute mountain sickness, which leads to headaches, nausea, appetite loss, muscular weakness and general fatigue.

— In addition to its effect on men, low air pressure alters the accuracy and performance of both weapons and aircraft. While lower air pressure increases the range of the projectiles fired, accuracy and predictability suffer. Aircraft engines typically produce less power and helicopters lose rotor efficiency.

— Lastly, the terrain itself dictates military strategy and imposes significant restrictions on soldiers. The terrain reduces mobility, often provides cover to the enemy, and limits the scope of operations. During the Kargil War, the Indian Army was at a particular disadvantage with the enemy occupying high positions overlooking the positions held by Indians.

— “Faced with a foe atop dominating heights [an army] may have no choice but to take the hill.” Acosta writes. That is what the Indian forces did. Against relentless enemy fire and unforgiving conditions, the Indian Army slowly, but certainly freed the peaks of Pakistani intruders.

How the Army conquered Kargil’s conditions

— The initial stages of the War taught some valuable lessons, as both the Army and the Air Force discovered that it was unprepared for such high-altitude combat at this scale. Many soldiers suffered from altitude sickness which even caused a few casualties. The lack of equipment for fighting in such cold weather was another challenge. On the other hand, the terrain and Pakistan’s constant shelling on the crucial NH 1A caused major logistical challenges.

— Eventually, the Army modified its methods to overcome these challenges. Units initiated acclimatisation and training programs to better prepare the soldiers for the conditions. Better cold-weather equipment was procured (though the Army remained lacking in this regard throughout the War). Techniques for high-altitude assault were further honed. Instead of daytime frontal attacks, assaults increasingly featured small groups scaling near-vertical terrain.

— “Most importantly, the Army coordinated overwhelming firepower with daring manoeuvres. Massive artillery fire preceded all attacks.,” Acosta wrote. With limitations of providing air cover to the ground forces due to the altitude and the terrain, the Army eventually leaned heavily on artillery, especially the controversial Bofors gun whose range nearly doubled in the thin air of Kargil.

— India’s hard-fought victory in the Kargil War illustrated the timeless challenges posed by combat at high altitude – challenges which are as deadly, if not more, than the enemy itself.

(Source: Kargil Vijay Diwas – How the Indian Army conquered the unkind conditions of Kargil)

Point to ponder: Twenty-four years after the Kargil conflict, our threats in the maritime domain have only increased. Discuss.

3. MCQ:

Consider the following events:

1. Operation Vijay

2. Operation Badr

3. The first proposal for National War Memorial

Which of the following is the correct ascending order of the above mentioned events?

(a) 1, 2, 3

(b) 2, 1, 3

(c) 1, 3, 2

(d) 3, 2, 1

Rajasthan’s Minimum Guaranteed Income Bill

WHY IN NEWS?

— Last week, the Rajasthan state Assembly passed “The Minimum Guaranteed Income Bill”. Those who supported this Bill have called it “revolutionary” and “historic” while its opponents have accused the government of “misleading” people and “fooling” them on the eve of Assembly elections.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Udit Misra Explains:

What are the key features of this Bill?

Enacting India’s first Urban Employment Guarantee Law

— All of us have heard of the MGNREG Act. This is a law passed by Parliament in 2005 and it provides a legal entitlement to households in rural India for getting 100 days of work for which the government has to pay for. This was started in rural India as an acknowledgement that there is tremendous distress in rural India. Over the years, this has provided relief to rural India’s teeming millions every time they faced increased distress such as the reverse migration (from cities to villages) that took place during the Covid pandemic.

— Over the past few years some states such as Rajasthan and Odisha had started off a similar “scheme” for urban employment guarantee, thanks to the growing economic distress in urban areas.

— With the nod to this Bill, Rajasthan has become the first state in the country to enact an urban employment guarantee law.

FYI: A law is different from a “scheme” or a “Yojana”. Simply put, a law confers a right on a citizen and he or she can go to a court of law to seek its implementation. A “scheme” provides no such legal guarantee and beneficiaries of any scheme remain at the mercy of the government in power.

— Under this Bill, “Every adult person residing in the urban areas of the State shall have a right to guaranteed employment, that is a right to get guaranteed employment for doing permissible work of at least 125 days in a financial year and to receive minimum wages therefor weekly or in any case not later than a fortnight, in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

— A crucial thing here is that this Bill provides 125 days of employment guarantee as against just 100 days of employment guarantee in MGNREGA.

Pension as a legal guarantee for the first time in India

— For individuals like disabled or widows or old, this Bill guarantees a pension of Rs 1,000 a month.

— Another key aspect of this pension guarantee is that the government will increase the amount by 15% every year. This is being done not just to future-proof it from inflation but also to progressively make up for the fairly low initial starting amount.

Minimum Guaranteed Income, not Minimum Income Guarantee: Difference with UBI

— The exact wording of the title of this Bill since it is crucial to understanding the essence of what the government is trying to do. It is “minimum guaranteed income,” not “minimum income guarantee”.

— Many might confuse this Bill to imply that the government is trying to provide some version of Universal Basic Income. Here is a 2019 interview with Philippe van Parijs, professor at the Faculty of Economic, Social and Political Sciences of the University of Louvain and the author of Basic Income, to understand more about the concept and its origins.

— Simply put, under a Universal Basic Income or a UBI scheme, the government takes away all existing subsidies and replaces them with a single cash payout to all citizens regardless of what they do and how much they earn. This cash payment is the UBI. The way UBI works is that only those who otherwise earn no money are able to enjoy the full UBI payout. Others, depending on what they already earn, end up paying it back to the government through taxation.

— What Rajasthan has done is not UBI. Instead, this Bill provides a “minimum guaranteed income” either by way of cash (Rs 1,000 per month) or through employment (Rs 255 per day for a maximum of 125 days) to all the adults living in the state. This forms the “minimum guaranteed income” but it is not the “minimum income guarantee” (in the sense of a UBI).

FYI: A “minimum income guarantee” or UBI would refer to a sum of money (substantially more than what the Rajasthan government is promising) that the government believes is good enough for any citizen to live off.

The “minimum guaranteed income”, on the other hand, is just the minimum money the state is guaranteeing to all without claiming that this is good enough for living.

— Like all analogies the following one is also imperfect but think of “minimum guaranteed income” (that Rajasthan is providing) as the minimum pocket money your parents might give you when you step out of your home and this amount is aimed to ensure that you don’t get into some trouble and are able to get back home safe and sound. The “minimum income guarantee”, on the other hand, is more like the amount of salary you’d expect from your employer to live a decent life all by yourself.

— Yet another way to understand this is that Rajasthan’s “minimum guaranteed income” is a small contribution towards what should be an adult’s “minimum income” (that is, if ever we were to calculate such a number).

What is the benefit that the government is providing?

— A government can announce that it will give free movie tickets every month to those who are young or it can say it will subsidise the tuition fee of those belonging to economically and socially weaker sections. The former may not necessarily raise the productive capacity of the students but the latter surely will. So the character of what is being promised matters.

What is the legal framework within which it is providing it?

— Until last week, the same 25 days of additional rural employment was provided under the formal of a scheme. Today, it has been enshrined as a legal right. The difference between the two is that the same benefits flowing to citizens under a scheme can be arbitrarily taken away any day while under the “rights” framework, people can seek recourse from the judiciary. In India’s Constitution, the whole point of clearly enunciating certain Fundamental Rights is to place a check on the powers of the government.

— So when a politician promises a laptop or an additional LPG cylinder at the time of a specific festival or a farm loan waiver without any legal or statutory framework it means that benefit is a largesse that can be taken away any time.

Will Rajasthan’s new Bill hold back the growth of its economy by making its poorest residents lazy?

Udit Misra writes, “Instead of predicting an answer, it is more instructive to introspect at two different levels.”

1. From the point of view of economics.

— The first starting point is to understand the definition of abject poverty. According to the World Bank, the abject poverty line is $2.15. This is in terms of international dollars — based on purchasing power parity. One such dollar is worth Rs 21.3. In other words, someone living on Rs 46 a day in India is considered to be living in abject poverty.

— According to the World Bank, as of 2019 (that is pre-Covid), as many as 137 million Indians were living at Rs 46 per day and as many as 612 million were living at Rs 78 per day ($3.65 poverty line).

— These numbers provide a benchmark to assess the scale of economic benefits that this new Bill provides the poor in Rajasthan.

— Rs 1,000 per month pension to those who are disabled or elderly or widows translates to Rs 33.3 per day.
Similarly able-bodied people who are being provided the opportunity to do manual labour for a maximum of 125 days in a year at around Rs 250 a day will get a maximum of around Rs 32,000 a year or Rs 87.3 a day.

— Will either of these payments per se make such beneficiaries so well off that they become lazy looks unlikely but is open to academic research. So is the question whether other similar benefits — such as subsidised food or free healthcare — can add up to derail the Indian economy.

2. Apart from the economic perspective, there is a Constitutional way to look at this issue as well.

— Two quotes — both related to the Preamble and the broader philosophy of India’s Constitution — can help introspection on this issue.

— The first is by noted constitutional expert D D Basu who said the following in relation to “economic justice” and the role that the government is supposed to play towards achieving it.

— “The banishment of poverty, not by the expropriation of those who have, but by the multiplication of the national wealth and resources and an equitable distribution thereof amongst all who contribute towards its production, is the aim of the State envisaged by the Directive Principles…The ideal of economic justice is to make equality of status meaningful and life worth living at its best removing inequality of opportunity and of status — social, economic and political.”

— The second quote is by B R Ambedkar from his 1949 speech to the Constituent Assembly where he explained what would happen if the Preamble is followed only in parts.

— “Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality would not become a natural course of thing.”

(Source: ExplainSpeaking – Making sense of Rajasthan’s Minimum Guaranteed Income Bill by Udit Misra)

Point to ponder: There is a need to reset the terms of debate around freebie, subsidy and compensation. Discuss.

4. MCQ:

‘The State shall endeavour to secure to all workers a living wage and a decent standard of life.’ Which of the following article acknowledges the above spirit in the form of UBI  as the government’s duty.

(a) Article 43

(b) Article 51

(c) Article 40

(d) Article 39

Biodiversity Act

WHY IN NEWS?

— Lok Sabha on Tuesday (July 25) gave its approval to a Bill to amend some provisions of the Biological Diversity Act of 2002. The Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill seeks to address concerns of several central ministries, state governments, researchers, industry, and other stakeholders, regarding the implementation of the 20-year-old law that is meant to preserve the country’s biological diversity and to ensure its sustainable use.

— The amendments aim to encourage Indian systems of medicine like Ayurveda, attract more foreign investment in the preservation and commercial utilisation of India’s biological resources, and simplify and streamline processes so that it is easy for everyone to comply with its provisions.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Amitabh Sinha Explains:

What is the biodiversity law, and why does India need one?

— Biological diversity refers to all kinds of life forms — animals, plants and microorganisms — their gene pools, and the ecosystems that they inhabit. The 2002 Act was a response to the global need to protect and conserve biological resources, which are under threat due to human activities.

— The extent of the damage was highlighted, much later, in a landmark 2019 report by the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a scientific body similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

— That report issued a stark warning: about 1 million animal and plant species, out of a total of about 8 million, were facing the threat of extinction. About 75 per cent of the Earth’s land surface and 66 per cent of the oceans had been “significantly altered”, it said.

— But efforts to protect biological diversity had begun much earlier. In 1994, countries including India had agreed to a Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), an international framework agreement similar to the more famous one on climate change. There was a general agreement on three things: (i) that indiscriminate use of biological resources needed to be halted, (ii) that sustainable use of these resources, for their medicinal properties for example, needed to be regulated, and (iii) that people and communities helping in protecting and maintaining these resources needed to be rewarded for their efforts.

— India’s Biological Diversity Act of 2002 was enacted by the government of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee with these objectives in mind. It set up a National Biodiversity Authority as a regulatory body, and prescribed the conditions in, and purposes for, which biological resources could be utilised. The purposes mainly related to scientific research and commercial use.

— Under this mechanism, biodiversity-rich countries needed to provide access to their biological resources to those wanting to use it for research or commercial reasons, and the user agencies, in turn, were mandated to share the benefits of their use with the local communities. This access and benefit-sharing works at both the domestic and the international levels.

— Over the last few years, the government too has been trying to encourage traditional systems of medicine, all of which rely on these biological resources.

What amendments have been proposed in the biodiversity law?

— The Bill passed on Tuesday makes several amendments to the 2002 Act, addressing most of the concerns raised by the practitioners of traditional systems of medicine, the seed sector, and the pharmaceutical industry.

— Certain categories of users of biological resources, like practitioners of Indian systems of medicine, have been exempted from making payments towards the access and benefit-sharing mechanism.

— Companies registered in India and controlled by Indians are now treated as Indian companies, even if they have foreign equity or partnership, thereby reducing the restrictions on them.

— Provisions have been included to speed up the approval process in cases of use of biological resources in scientific research, or for filing of patent applications.

Why did the need for amendments to the law arise?

— Over the years, several stakeholders, like those representing the Indian system of medicine, the seed sector, pharmaceutical and other industries, and the research community, have pointed out that some of the provisions of the 2002 law restricted their activities, and thus needed to be modified.

— In addition, countries agreed to the Nagoya Protocol in 2010, an important international agreement under the CBD, that contained an Access and Benefit Sharing mechanism.

— The penalty provisions for wrongdoing by user agencies have been rationalised.

(Source: What is the Biodiversity Act? What changes has the Lok Sabha cleared in the law? by Amitabh Sinha)